640 replies to this topic

[B Jenkins]

Ben Masada, on 15 June 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

There was indeed a big difference between Israel and Judah as God's judgment of them was concerned. According to Psalm 78:67-69, Israel, aka, the Tabernacle of Joseph was Divinely rejected and transfered to exile among the Gentiles on a permanent basis. Judah did get a share of that judgment but sent to exile in Babylon, on a temporary period of only 70 years. But that's not an individual's shadding of his blood for another but a people for another, according to the prophecy of the Scapegoat keeping the People reminded of throughout History.
Ben

No, the whole Law is a pattern for the Christ. Man gives his most perfect beast for atonement. God gives his perfect Son for the salvation of all. Afterall, Christ had to fulfill the whole Law? Right?

Well, what sacrifice would the Son of God give for atonement? With a filthy beast? How does the Christ fulfill the atonement DEMANDED by the Law? Hmmm... sure beats me (sarcasm).

Well, if He lives without sin, then there is no requirement of a blood atonement YET to fulfill the WHOLE LAW... there is no forgiveness of sins without a propitiary offering... AND yet also the whole Law NEEDS to be fulfilled including the blood atonement. Blood atonement is an absolutely necessary component of the Law, otherwise the WHOLE Law remains unfulfilled.

Now, this Israel/Scapegoat nonsense you keep dribbling has absolutely no scriptural grounds whatsoever.

[Arbitran]

dside, on 15 June 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

No, the whole Law is a pattern for the Christ. Man gives his most perfect beast for atonement. God gives his perfect Son for the salvation of all. Afterall, Christ had to fulfill the whole Law? Right?

Well, what sacrifice would the Son of God give for atonement? With a filthy beast? How does the Christ fulfill the atonement DEMANDED by the Law? Hmmm... sure beats me (sarcasm).

Well, if He lives without sin, then there is no requirement of a blood atonement YET to fulfill the WHOLE LAW... there is no forgiveness of sins without a propitiary offering... AND yet also the whole Law NEEDS to be fulfilled including the blood atonement. Blood atonement is an absolutely necessary component of the Law, otherwise the WHOLE Law remains unfulfilled.

Now, this Israel/Scapegoat nonsense you keep dribbling has absolutely no scriptural grounds whatsoever.

Wow. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you have absolutely no ******* idea what the Tanach says.

[Ben Masada]

dside, on 15 June 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Quote

No, the whole Law is a pattern for the Christ. Man gives his most perfect beast for atonement. God gives his perfect Son for the salvation of all. Afterall, Christ had to fulfill the whole Law? Right?

Wrong! If I were to agree with you, I would be admitting contradictions not only in the Tanach but also in the NT. First of all, according to the Scriptures, no individual is supposed to be sacrificed to redeem another. (Exo. 32:33; 2 Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:34; Eze. 18:20) Beasts were not adopted as a commandment to atone for nobody sins but to prophetically point to some fulfillment in the future, as the prophecy of the Scapegoat, which I welcome you to read my thread on "The Prophecy of the Scapegoat." As a fourth item, if Jesus was conscious of his supposed mission to die to redeem Mankind, he would not have prayed for three times in the Gethsemane asking not to die on the cross, since, as he himself declared, that it was not his will to do so. (Mat. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) Last, but not least, Jesus was not perfect as sin is concerned. He broke the Golden Rule which says "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us." He whipped and caused financial damage to the money changers in the front area of the Temple. (John 2:15)  If Jesus was charismatic and with Divine powers, he could have solved that problem with a stern glance of his countenance and not hurt his neighbor in order to get his message through.

Quote

Well, what sacrifice would the Son of God give for atonement? With a filthy beast? How does the Christ fulfill the atonement DEMANDED by the Law? Hmmm... sure beats me (sarcasm).

To answer this question of yours, the real Jesus, who was a Jewish man, believed in the forgiveness of sins through the prophetic method of repentance and obedience to the Law, according to Isaiah 1:18,19. That's the only way to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow. But hey, you must be talking about the Christ of Paul, who acted against the Word of God.

Quote

Well, if He lives without sin, then there is no requirement of a blood atonement YET to fulfill the WHOLE LAW... there is no forgiveness of sins without a propitiary offering... AND yet also the whole Law NEEDS to be fulfilled including the blood atonement. Blood atonement is an absolutely necessary component of the Law, otherwise the WHOLE Law remains unfulfilled.

As I have proved above, Jesus did not live without sin. But I agree with you that there is no need of blood atonement to live by the Law. Only obedience to it. However, there is no truth to say that there is no forgiveness of sins without propitiatory offering. There is and I give you two examples: First is the one already given in Isaiah 1:18.19. The second is that the Jews spent 70 years in exile in Babylon and never a single animal sacrifice was performed. Nevertheless, at the end of the exile, the transgression that had caused the exile had stopped, the sin had ended, and guilt had been expiated? Do you have any idea how that happened? That's proof that the main function of animal sacrifices was not for the forgiveness of sins. Show me where it is written that blood atonement is an absolutely necessary component of the Law. Have you ever heard that "laws are to be broken?" A transgression of the Law is forgivable with repentance and return to obedience, as long as one does not reject the Law. There is a big difference between breaking and transgressing the Law.

Quote

Now, this Israel/Scapegoat nonsense you keep dribbling has absolutely no scriptural grounds whatsoever.

Now, go ahead and read my thread about "The Prophecy of the Scapegoat." Perhaps you will learn where are the Biblical grounds for what I am talking about.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 19 June 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[B Jenkins]

Ben Masada, on 19 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Wrong! If I were to agree with you, I would be admitting contradictions not only in the Tanach but also in the NT. First of all, according to the Scriptures, no individual is supposed to be sacrificed to redeem another. (Exo. 32:33; 2 Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:34; Eze. 18:20) Beasts were not adopted as a commandment to atone for nobody sins but to prophetically point to some fulfillment in the future, as the prophecy of the Scapegoat, which I welcome you to read my thread on "The Prophecy of the Scapegoat." As a fourth item, if Jesus was conscious of his supposed mission to die to redeem Mankind, he would not have prayed for three times in the Gethsemane asking not to die on the cross, since, as he himself declared, that it was not his will to do so. (Mat. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) Last, but not least, Jesus was not perfect as sin is concerned. He broke the Golden Rule which says "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us." He whipped and caused financial damage to the money changers in the front area of the Temple. (John 2:15)  If Jesus was charismatic and with Divine powers, he could have solved that problem with a stern glance of his countenance and not hurt his neighbor in order to get his message through.



To answer this question of yours, the real Jesus, who was a Jewish man, believed in the forgiveness of sins through the prophetic method of repentance and obedience to the Law, according to Isaiah 1:18,19. That's the only way to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow. But hey, you must be talking about the Christ of Paul, who acted against the Word of God.



As I have proved above, Jesus did not live without sin. But I agree with you that there is no need of blood atonement to live by the Law. Only obedience to it. However, there is no truth to say that there is no forgiveness of sins without propitiatory offering. There is and I give you two examples: First is the one already given in Isaiah 1:18.19. The second is that the Jews spent 70 years in exile in Babylon and never a single animal sacrifice was performed. Nevertheless, at the end of the exile, the transgression that had caused the exile had stopped, the sin had ended, and guilt had been expiated? Do you have any idea how that happened? That's proof that the main function of animal sacrifices was not for the forgiveness of sins. Show me where it is written that blood atonement is an absolutely necessary component of the Law. Have you ever heard that "laws are to be broken?" A transgression of the Law is forgivable with repentance and return to obedience, as long as one does not reject the Law. There is a big difference between breaking and transgressing the Law.



Now, go ahead and read my thread about "The Prophecy of the Scapegoat." Perhaps you will learn where are the Biblical grounds for what I am talking about.

Ben

They instituted blood atonement since the return from captivity up til the time of Jesus... excuse me... Money changers? Beasts sold in the temple?

You are just performing scriptural gymnastics, making up this and that, so long as it fits into your model of interpretation.

Jesus ran off the money changers and sellers of beasts because they were running a racket. They were dishonest userers.

[Arbitran]

dside, on 20 June 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

You are just performing scriptural gymnastics, making up this and that, so long as it fits into your model of interpretation.

Please excuse me for laughing. Ha. HA. Are you really so blinded by your ignorance and illusory ideology that you can't see the irony of this statement? You pull extrapolations and bull**** interpretations out of your ass on a daily basis!

[Ron Jeremy]

Arbitran, on 21 June 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

Please excuse me for laughing. Ha. HA. Are you really so blinded by your ignorance and illusory ideology that you can't see the irony of this statement? You pull extrapolations and bull**** interpretations out of your ass on a daily basis!

It certainly didn't come out of his butt. He is simply following a certain kind of Christianity, which happen to be really archaic and backward. (but most kinds of Xianity are...ha ha ha)

[Arbitran]

Ron Jeremy, on 21 June 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

It certainly didn't come out of his butt. He is simply following a certain kind of Christianity, which happen to be really archaic and backward. (but most kinds of Xianity are...ha ha ha)

Well-noted. But then, what part of Christianity isn't utterly antiquated and backwards?

[Ron Jeremy]

Arbitran, on 21 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Well-noted. But then, what part of Christianity isn't utterly antiquated and backwards?

Beats me, I dunno.

[Ben Masada]

dside, on 20 June 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

They instituted blood atonement since the return from captivity up til the time of Jesus... excuse me... Money changers? Beasts sold in the temple?

You are just performing scriptural gymnastics, making up this and that, so long as it fits into your model of interpretation.

Jesus ran off the money changers and sellers of beasts because they were running a racket. They were dishonest userers.

No, the only thing that can excuse you is knowledge of the Scriptures that you can acquire by studying it. Blood atonement was instituted since the Garden of Eden; Abel,  Abraham and the patriarchs, throughout Moses, and it became centralized with the building of the Temple. It ceased for 70  years with the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. It returned with the rebuilding of the Temple and it has ceased since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans. Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the cessation of the sacrifices, because they procceeded for another 40 years till the Temple was destroyed, which neutrilizes the Christian theology that the ceasing of animal sacrifices was due to Jesus' crucifixion.

And for the money changers, beasts were not sold in the Temple but in the front area of the Temple; outside the Temple. Even from the logical point of view it makes no sense. Imagine the noise of the animals. In the Temple!!! Only those with an anti-Jewish attitude would think of the money changers selling animals in the Temple.

Every thing I say here is not gymnascs but documented facts with the proper quotations. The problem is that you don't check the quotations perhaps with the pre-conceived intent to accuse me with using gymnasts with Scriptural texts.

The only excuse Jesus used for his violent treatment of the money changers was that they were desecrating the Temple and not because they were being dishonest. I think you ought to brush up a little on your Christian skills to study your Bible a little harder. If you don't find the text, let me know and I'll orientate you.

Ben

[Arbitran]

Ben Masada, on 23 June 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

No, the only thing that can excuse you is knowledge of the Scriptures that you can acquire by studying it. Blood atonement was instituted since the Garden of Eden; Abel,  Abraham and the patriarchs, throughout Moses, and it became centralized with the building of the Temple. It ceased for 70  years with the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. It returned with the rebuilding of the Temple and it has ceased since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans. Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the cessation of the sacrifices, because they procceeded for another 40 years till the Temple was destroyed, which neutrilizes the Christian theology that the ceasing of animal sacrifices was due to Jesus' crucifixion.

And for the money changers, beasts were not sold in the Temple but in the front area of the Temple; outside the Temple. Even from the logical point of view it makes no sense. Imagine the noise of the animals. In the Temple!!! Only those with an anti-Jewish attitude would think of the money changers selling animals in the Temple.

Every thing I say here is not gymnascs but documented facts with the proper quotations. The problem is that you don't check the quotations perhaps with the pre-conceived intent to accuse me with using gymnasts with Scriptural texts.

The only excuse Jesus used for his violent treatment of the money changers was that they were desecrating the Temple and not because they were being dishonest. I think you ought to brush up a little on your Christian skills to study your Bible a little harder. If you don't find the text, let me know and I'll orientate you.

Ben

Can you blame him Ben? He's had to have a Hindu-atheist inform him of most of the mitzvot, and several of Jesus' teachings. He clearly hasn't read his Bible as much as he wants us to think...

[Ben Masada]

Arbitran, on 23 June 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Can you blame him Ben? He's had to have a Hindu-atheist inform him of most of the mitzvot, and several of Jesus' teachings. He clearly hasn't read his Bible as much as he wants us to think...

It does seem obvious.

[MacksPower]

Ben Masada, on 19 June 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Wrong! If I were to agree with you, I would be admitting contradictions not only in the Tanach but also in the NT. First of all, according to the Scriptures, no individual is supposed to be sacrificed to redeem another. (Exo. 32:33; 2 Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:34; Eze. 18:20) Beasts were not adopted as a commandment to atone for nobody sins but to prophetically point to some fulfillment in the future, as the prophecy of the Scapegoat, which I welcome you to read my thread on "The Prophecy of the Scapegoat." As a fourth item, if Jesus was conscious of his supposed mission to die to redeem Mankind, he would not have prayed for three times in the Gethsemane asking not to die on the cross, since, as he himself declared, that it was not his will to do so. (Mat. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) Last, but not least, Jesus was not perfect as sin is concerned. He broke the Golden Rule which says "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us." He whipped and caused financial damage to the money changers in the front area of the Temple. (John 2:15)  If Jesus was charismatic and with Divine powers, he could have solved that problem with a stern glance of his countenance and not hurt his neighbor in order to get his message through.



To answer this question of yours, the real Jesus, who was a Jewish man, believed in the forgiveness of sins through the prophetic method of repentance and obedience to the Law, according to Isaiah 1:18,19. That's the only way to set things right with God, so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow. But hey, you must be talking about the Christ of Paul, who acted against the Word of God.



As I have proved above, Jesus did not live without sin. But I agree with you that there is no need of blood atonement to live by the Law. Only obedience to it. However, there is no truth to say that there is no forgiveness of sins without propitiatory offering. There is and I give you two examples: First is the one already given in Isaiah 1:18.19. The second is that the Jews spent 70 years in exile in Babylon and never a single animal sacrifice was performed. Nevertheless, at the end of the exile, the transgression that had caused the exile had stopped, the sin had ended, and guilt had been expiated? Do you have any idea how that happened? That's proof that the main function of animal sacrifices was not for the forgiveness of sins. Show me where it is written that blood atonement is an absolutely necessary component of the Law. Have you ever heard that "laws are to be broken?" A transgression of the Law is forgivable with repentance and return to obedience, as long as one does not reject the Law. There is a big difference between breaking and transgressing the Law.

I do not know how you have "proved" Jesus commited a sin. You have raised a plausible but dubious opinion and then stated that it is a proven fact, that is not proof of anything except what your opinion is. The Golden rule as you quoted it is: "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us." but I can easily imagine myself wanting someone to uprightly tell me I was wrong in commercializing a place of worship, whether inside, outside or on the veranda, and so can imagine Jesus thinking the same way, just because you do not view things in that light does not mean that by imposing your views on Jesus you have somehow "proven" he commited a sin. In the same way that just because I stated my viewpoint I have not proven he did not commit a sin.

Edited by MacksPower, 02 July 2012 - 01:35 AM.

[Ben Masada]

MacksPower, on 02 July 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

I do not know how you have "proved" Jesus commited a sin. You have raised a plausible but dubious opinion and then stated that it is a proven fact, that is not proof of anything except what your opinion is. The Golden rule as you quoted it is: "Not to do unto others what we would not like they did unto us." but I can easily imagine myself wanting someone to uprightly tell me I was wrong in commercializing a place of worship, whether inside, outside or on the veranda, and so can imagine Jesus thinking the same way, just because you do not view things in that light does not mean that by imposing your views on Jesus you have somehow "proven" he commited a sin. In the same way that just because I stated my viewpoint I have not proven he did not commit a sin.

Again, isn't a sin to break the Golden Rule? The Golden Rule is understood as covering all the commandments represented by the second part of the Decalogue. Take a look at Mat. 15:26. Do you think that Canaanite mother who asked Jesus to cure her daughter liked to be compared to the dogs? I don't think so. Take a look at Mat. 23:13-36. Do you think the Pharisees liked to be called frauds, wicked people, blind guides, blind fools, filled with loot and lust, whitewashed tombs, murderers, viper's nests, etc, etc.? I am talking about all those "woes" mentioned as addressed by Jesus to the Pharisees. I don't think so. If you can do all that to your neighbor, and still claim to be perfect, you must belong with the extraordinary genius of this world.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 05 July 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[B Jenkins]

Ben Masada, on 05 July 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Again, isn't a sin to break the Golden Rule? The Golden Rule is understood as covering all the commandments represented by the second part of the Decalogue. Take a look at Mat. 15:26. Do you think that Canaanite mother who asked Jesus to cure her daughter liked to be compared to the dogs? I don't think so. Take a look at Mat. 23:13-36. Do you think the Pharisees liked to be called frauds, wicked people, blind guides, blind fools, filled with loot and lust, whitewashed tombs, murderers, viper's nests, etc, etc.? I am talking about all those "woes" mentioned as addressed by Jesus to the Pharisees. I don't think so. If you can do all that to your neighbor, and still claim to be perfect, you must belong with the extraordinary genius of this world.

Ben

Matt. 15:26

Nothing has changed in the Middle East, Jews and Canaanites have held nothing but contempt for one another even in the days of Jesus. According to the Jews, the Canaanites are dogs, and according to the Canaanites Jews are dogs. Jesus was simply using the vernacular of the day and time sans the actual contempt to the test the faith of this woman, a la "are you capable of having faith in a Jew? Or accept this gift of healing from a Jew?" The faith of that Canaanite woman went under trial.

Matt. 23:13-36

That's right, Jesus cited their self ingratiating hypocrisies and ostentatious legalism. Jesus said it is what's in the heart that matters when one worships and serves God not showy puffed up works and pride in self.


Luke 12:1-5

King James Version (KJV)


1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
² For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
³ Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
⁴ And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
⁵ But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

[HavocWing]

dside, on 06 July 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Matt. 15:26

Nothing has changed in the Middle East, Jews and Canaanites have held nothing but contempt for one another even in the days of Jesus. According to the Jews, the Canaanites are dogs, and according to the Canaanites Jews are dogs. Jesus was simply using the vernacular of the day and time sans the actual contempt to the test the faith of this woman, a la "are you capable of having faith in a Jew? Or accept this gift of healing from a Jew?" The faith of that Canaanite woman went under trial.

Matt. 23:13-36

That's right, Jesus cited their self ingratiating hypocrisies and ostentatious legalism. Jesus said it is what's in the heart that matters when one worships and serves God not showy puffed up works and pride in self.


Luke 12:1-5

King James Version (KJV)


1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
² For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
³ Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.
⁴ And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
⁵ But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

It's psycho god!